What constitutes interrogation under the Miranda Rule?

Interrogation is defined as " ' "express questioning, or words or actions on the part of the police that "are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect." ' [Citations.]" (People v. Gamache (2010) 48 Cal.4th 347, 387.) Interrogation, therefore, includes investigation-related questioning initiated by the police or its functional equivalent, not statements or conversation volunteered by the defendant. (Ibid.) " ' "Clearly, not all conversation between an officer and a suspect constitutes interrogation. The police may speak to a suspect in custody as long as the speech would not reasonably be construed as calling for an incriminating response." ' [Citations.]" (People v. Huggins (2006) 38 Cal.4th 175, 198.)

"Spontaneous statements are not the product of interrogation and therefore are not violative of Miranda. [Citation.]" (People v. Mobley (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 761, 791-792 (Mobley), disapproved of on other grounds by People v. Trujillo (2006) 40 Cal.4th 165.) In addition, " '[a] defendant has not invoked his or her right to silence when the defendant's

Page 14